In my book that's going 0 for 3, as those three rank 15th, 19th, and 33rd respectively in the latest shot quality neutral save percentage rankings at Hockey Numbers. If you are going to just rank goalies entirely based on wins, at least put somebody like Cam Ward in there who actually has been having a good season.

And then there is this example of impeccable logic:

Honorable mention also goes to Boston's Tim Thomas, but 52 games played doesn't bring him up to snuff.

That's right, Thomas, you should have demanded your team play you more games. Don't you know that there is some magical point at around the 55 game mark that makes you instantly become worthy of Vezina consideration?

Take Evgeni Nabokov, for instance, who has played 59 games this season. It shouldn't even be necessary to explain why 59 games played is so much more valuable than 52, but I'll give it a try for all of you non-NHL.com analysts out there who clearly don't understand goaltending.

Let's compare them through their first 52 games this season:

Nabokov: 36-8-7, 2.41, .911Thomas: 34-11-7, 2.07, .933

Even though it looks like Thomas was by far the superior goaltender through the first 52 games, by playing more games Nabokov had a much harder workload. I mean, just look at the difference in the number of shots faced this year:

Shots against in 2008-09:Evgeni Nabokov: 1,622Tim Thomas: 1,621

Maybe Thomas would have let in his next shot, and then have his teammates score 33 own goals on him, dropping him behind Nabokov in save percentage. We just don't know, and that's why anything a goalie does in only 52 games is completely worthless.

Similarly, in his first 52 games this season Kiprusoff had fewer wins than Thomas did over the same span, as well as a 2.80 GAA and a .906 save percentage. In his extra games played over Thomas, Kipper has gone 12-8-1, 2.91, .895. To match Kiprusoff's season stats, Thomas would have only needed to win 11 out of his last 23 decisions, and put up a 4.78 GAA and an .805 save percentage.

Some of you might think that is pretty good evidence that Thomas has been a lot better than Kiprusoff. You would be wrong. Of course I do concede that the goalie currently leading the league in save percentage might not turn into by far the worst goalie in the history of the NHL over his next 23 games. That is possible, some might even say probable. But it could have happened. All we know is that Kiprusoff did play those extra games and Thomas didn't. Seventy-five is more than 52, and therefore Kipper has been a better goalie this season. End of story.

-- 1st in the league in Sv%-- 1st in the league in GAA-- 2nd in the league in Pts%-- successful team-- clear #1 over a well-known backup, playing 2/3 of the games with superior numbers across the board-- paid his dues-- good guy-- helluva story

It won't be unanimous by any means, but I'll be pretty surprised if he doesn't get it.

Sure use numbers and facts to make your point...Thats not how the NHL operates

I think the point is that when it comes to awards voting, a lot "hockey people" and journalists do use numbers. You basically have to; very few people see every team play a significant number of games. I don't think there's an NHL journalist out there like Paul Zimmerman of SI who watches and grades every single NFL game.

The problem is not that they use numbers, it's that they don't know how to interpret the numbers. This is especially true for goaltenders.

Rocky Bonanno throws out a lot of stats in this piece, but it doesn't look like he really understands what the stats measure and how they relate to the individual's contribution to winning.

I think there is something to be said for starting a lot of games. Every game that Kipper does not start is a game where Calgary is stuck with Curtis McElhinney. Now, Kipper is hardly having a Vezina-calibre season, but his stats are better than his backups across the board. McElhinney's SV% is .889 to Kipper's .903, wich is an exra goal every 71.4 shots. That's two goals every 5 or 6 games. That's pretty huge.

Having a workhorse also means that you don't have to spend any more than $500K on a backup.

Playing in goal for 75 games is also far more difficult than playing 60 games. I'm not sure the stats will bear that out, because the guys who play more games do so because they are capable of playing that kind of schedule without fatiguing themselves. Case is point-- Brodeur can play 75 games because he's a big guy...Ryan Miller will struggle with that kind of schedule because he's got a more fragile body.

My point is not that Kipper deserves any Vezina votes, because he's been extremely lackluster this season. My point is that there's something to be said for playing a lot of games.

NHL.com has some of the worst "analysts" around and that's saying something. There was a piece at the half way point of the season on the NW division. The author's pick for the best coach in the division was......Tony Granato.

Rocky Bonanno throws out a lot of stats in this piece, but it doesn't look like he really understands what the stats measure and how they relate to the individual's contribution to winning.

Well said. Stats are very important for goalie award voting, and always have been. Regrettably the stats that get weighted most heavily are wins and shutouts.

My point is that there's something to be said for playing a lot of games.

I guess there is something to be said for it, sure, but whatever there is to say should be said in the Hart Trophy debate, not the Vezina one. Best goalie is best goalie, and games played shouldn't matter much at all except for in terms of assessing how likely it was that the guy was just lucky.

That is unless I see some more good evidence that fatigue is a major factor. I haven't seen much to support that yet, despite looking very hard for it.

whats funny is that despite the article you picked being inexcusably wrong, so is your assertion that the only way to measure them is by using just one statistic.

if there was ever a guy who is underrated, it would be nick backstrom. what does this guy have to due to get some credit? post a .950 save percentage and a 1.5 gaa with 55 wins? year in and out he has outstanding numbers, yet is never anywhere near the top of the voting. instead guys with pretty mediocre numbers like lundqvist and kipprasoff always seems to be given consideration.

playing a lot of games is obviously something that should be given some weight, but only under certain circumstances. if the team does much better with one guy in net, or he clearly plays better than the backup, then sure, give him the nod over a guy with similar numbers. however in the case of guys like kipprasoff, nabakov, and lundqvist, guys who historically have not done much better than the guys behind them, then why should they be given credit for starting more games when in reality they are hardly doing their teams any favors. i got a laugh out of lundqvist, who this past sunday demanded to play an absolutely meaningless game against philly, and when asked why his response was "i wanted to get to 38 wins so i could set a career high".

By the same token, perhaps one of the reasons Brodeur has played so many games each season is similar: to accumulate huge career win totals.

Since Brodeur has played so many games per yr, & NJ has usually been near the top of the standings, he's probably played lots of relatively meaningless games in his career.

Of course, for most of Brodeur's career he's had some of the worst 2nd/3rd/4th string goalies playing behind him -- so it definitely is in NJ's best interest to play Brodeur 70+ games per yr, even if he tires a bit & his performance perhaps drops a bit.

You'd think a goalie's performance would drop the more games he plays... hopefully evidence one way or the other can be gathered someday.

And there is Statman once against jumping at the bit to bring up Brodeur again. You really must have some kind of issue with the dude. Considering the only times you have anything to say is when there is something about Brodeur, most of which are anti-Brodeur, and even when there isn't you jump at the opportunity to bring him into a conversation, things do not exactly add up when you claim to be "objective".

Read the title of this blog & you'll get a clue as to why Brodeur's name is brought up from time to time. I am only concerned about objective analysis of hockey... if anyone is constantly trying to circumvent objective analysis to stick up for a presumably favourite player/team, it is most obviously you.

I don't follow the Rangers or Lundqvist, but what you said about him seems like a reasonable observation.

I still do not get which one it is? You either play the whole "the name of this blog is an exaggerated title designed to get attention" card when it suits you, or you use the whole "the title of the blog is why the site obsessively follows Brodeur" card when you want to bash him.

So long Statman. I do not expect to be hearing anymore of your nonsensical analysis for awhile after that pathetic show you put on regarding Brodeur's goalie equipment. What is even worse is you argued like you knew what you were talking about. Yet you were 150% wrong. Just like you usually are.

Haha... of course, when I said that leg pads were too big I must have been talking about height & not width... only you can read my mind like that. [Having wide leg pads is far more advantageous for a goalie than having tall ones.]

Yes, moron... as I've said several times now, Brodeur's pads ARE huge... all goalies' pads are... compared to the several decades prior to about 1995. I bring up this fact, & you instantly cry foul over your hero Brodeur. You're just way too emotionally invested in him, whereas I could care less whether he (or any goalie) is the best or worst of all time. All I care about is accurate hockey analysis. All you care about is yapping your little mouth off about everything.

As for slippery little weasels... what part of the country do you live in?

Statman your a bigger moron to think that Broduer's pads are huge have you seen some of these other goalie's pads they are out of proportion. For example look at Carey Price, Johnaton Quick and all those butterfly goalies have those huge flaps at the top of thier pads

About Me

I'm Philip Myrland, goalie stats blogger since 2007 and former writer for Hockey Prospectus. I call myself a contrarian because I rely mainly on stats-based analysis, think large sample sizes are more important than "big saves" and prefer to rank goalies based on save percentage rather than team success. In other words, pretty much the mainstream views of the hockey analytics community, but I've grown attached to the handle and plan to keep it as long as broadcasters everywhere keep bringing up GAA and wins. If you have any questions or comments contact me by email (contrariangoaltender@gmail.com). You can also follow me on Twitter (@tcghockey).